Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error

On 6/6/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2024 10:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 13:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/6/2024 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-05 13:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/5/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-04 18:02:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

*HOW PARTIAL SIMULATIONS CORRECTLY DETERMINE NON-HALTING*
>
On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct
(He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>
<Professor Sipser agreed>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then
>
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
non-halting sequence of configurations.
</Professor Sipser agreed>

>
It is quite clear what Professor Sipser agreed.

>
Those were my verbatim words that he agreed to, no one
has ever correctly provided any alternative interpretation
that could possibly make my own HH(DD,DD)==0 incorrect.

>
One can agree with those words because they are both clear and true.
Whether they are sufficient to your purposes is another problem but
that is nor relevant to their acceptablility.
>

If you use those words
as the second last part of your proof then it sould be obvious that we
need to look at the other parts in order to find an error in the proof.

>
That is slightly more than zero supporting reasoning yet mere gibberish
when construed as any rebuttal to this:

>
Those who disagree with you about whether something is "gibberish" may
think that you are stupid. You probably don't want them to think so,
regardless whether thinking so would be right or wrong.
>

*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf

>
Why would anyone construe my words as any rebuttal to that? That pdf
merely claims that a partucuar author (a C program) proves two particular
claims, the second of which is badly formed (because of the two
verbs it is hard to parse and consequently hard to be sure that the
apparent meaning or apparent lack of meaning is what is intended).
>

>
*I will dumb it down for you some more*

>
Did you knwo that "dumb it down" does not mean 'change the topic'?
>

Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>
_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
*That meets this criteria*

>
It doesn't if you mean the criteria implied by the subject line.
>

 Yes it does mean that when we ourselves detect the repeating
state of DD correctly simulated by HH does meet the first part
of the following criteria:
 <Professor Sipser agreed>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then
    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</Professor Sipser agreed>
 That the second part <is> logically entailed by this first part.
*No one can possibly correctly disagree with that*
 

Yes, but you can only do the second part if you did the first part.
But the first part includes the behavior of H based on what it does in the second part.
So, if H WILL abort its simulation, then its simulation is NOT a "Correct Simulation" per the rules, and so you can not use it.
Please note that he might have been thinking of if THIS COPY of H could look at what would happen if THIS COPY was actually a UTM, AND DOING SO DOESN'T CHANGE THE INPUT (so the D on the tape still calls the original H, not the changed hypothetical one) and if this H can correct determine that input would not halt, then H can abort.
This would follow from the fact that a Halt Decider H(<M>, d) needs to decide on the behavior of M(d) which can be seen in the behavior of UTM(<M>,d), but this doesn't change the code of M as your logic tries to do, because it is just based on incorrect understanding of the problem.